The Death/Loss Of Religion In America (1 Viewer)

[BlackCrowes]

the OP says that Pew started tracking this in 2007, which is right about the time that the Four Horsemen of the New Atheism movement became popular. You can’t ignore the effect that they undoubtedly had.

I know The End of Faith by Sam Harris pretty much slammed the door for me on any possible return to religion. I was kind of wondering in a world of deism until then. I’m guessing I’m not alone in that respect.

I have to say I find atheists who are confident that there's no God/god to be "as bad"* as folks that are confidently religious and have no doubt about God's existence. Both are, IMO, acts of faith/belief. There's at least a plausibility that anything explained by science was done by a god - if a god/God exists it's entirely possible that our reality is totally altered by their whims. Read: there's no concrete way to prove that we aren't in The Matrix.

I find agnosticism to be the most logical of those 3 choices. Man has been attempting to prove/disprove god/God for a long time and we still have no clue. And it seems rather presumptuous of us to assume that we can know it. God/god could easily be a being that we can't even comprehend - because they may not want us to know or comprehend them. Or there could be no god. I don't think any of us knows.

*I'm not saying "as bad" meaning they are bad but more using the term to compare the two - both require faith.

My definition of atheism isn’t “there is no god”. That’s an irrational assertion IMO

Just to make sure I understand your position - you are saying you are confident that the deities as outlined in religious texts do not exist?

Atheism is simply that lack of belief in any gods. Am I 100% confident that no gods exist? of course not. I just see no reason to believe in any.

Taylor Swift is a god, and she exists. There you have it.

check and mate!

 

[Captain Cranks]

I have to say I find atheists who are confident that there's no God/god to be "as bad"* as folks that are confidently religious and have no doubt about God's existence. Both are, IMO, acts of faith/belief. There's at least a plausibility that anything explained by science was done by a god - if a god/God exists it's entirely possible that our reality is totally altered by their whims. Read: there's no concrete way to prove that we aren't in The Matrix.

I find agnosticism to be the most logical of those 3 choices. Man has been attempting to prove/disprove god/God for a long time and we still have no clue. And it seems rather presumptuous of us to assume that we can know it. God/god could easily be a being that we can't even comprehend - because they may not want us to know or comprehend them. Or there could be no god. I don't think any of us knows.

*I'm not saying "as bad" meaning they are bad but more using the term to compare the two - both require faith.

Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they don't even describe the same thing. Theism vs atheism is whether a person believes in a god or gods. Gnostic vs agnosticism is whether a person thinks it's knowable or unknowable.

This sums it up nicely

Personally I'm an agnostic atheist. I don't believe in a god but I also don't think it's knowable.

 

[Terminalxylem]

the OP says that Pew started tracking this in 2007, which is right about the time that the Four Horsemen of the New Atheism movement became popular. You can’t ignore the effect that they undoubtedly had.

I know The End of Faith by Sam Harris pretty much slammed the door for me on any possible return to religion. I was kind of wondering in a world of deism until then. I’m guessing I’m not alone in that respect.

I have to say I find atheists who are confident that there's no God/god to be "as bad"* as folks that are confidently religious and have no doubt about God's existence. Both are, IMO, acts of faith/belief. There's at least a plausibility that anything explained by science was done by a god - if a god/God exists it's entirely possible that our reality is totally altered by their whims. Read: there's no concrete way to prove that we aren't in The Matrix.

I find agnosticism to be the most logical of those 3 choices. Man has been attempting to prove/disprove god/God for a long time and we still have no clue. And it seems rather presumptuous of us to assume that we can know it. God/god could easily be a being that we can't even comprehend - because they may not want us to know or comprehend them. Or there could be no god. I don't think any of us knows.

*I'm not saying "as bad" meaning they are bad but more using the term to compare the two - both require faith.

Your point is taken, but it’s impossible to prove god, or anything for that matter, doesn’t exist.

I always thought agnosticism was kind of a cowardly way to avoid taking a stance.

So I don’t know with absolute certainty there is no higher power, but it sure seems unlikely, from an empiric viewpoint. It’s also far too convenient, imo.

You might invoke Pascal’s wager here, but as an atheist, my time is too fleeting to investigate every religious path.

 

[The Commish]

I always thought agnosticism was kind of a cowardly way to avoid taking a stance.

Might I ask why you think it's so important to take a stance one way or the other?

 

[Terminalxylem]

I always thought agnosticism was kind of a cowardly way to avoid taking a stance.

Might I ask why you think it's so important to take a stance one way or the other?

I believe there’s a Rush song about it…

Seriously though, it isn’t important to me. While technically accurate, I just think agnosticism for something inherently unknowable is kind of a cop out.

I guess I'm the opposite of @AAABatteries. I used to be agnostic, but the more I learned/thought about it, the less I believed any supernatural explanation for our existence was plausible.

 

[The Commish]

I always thought agnosticism was kind of a cowardly way to avoid taking a stance.

Might I ask why you think it's so important to take a stance one way or the other?

I believe there’s a Rush song about it…

Seriously though, it isn’t important to me. While technically accurate, I just think agnosticism for something inherently unknowable is kind of a cop out.

I guess I'm the opposite of @AAABatteries. I used to be agnostic, but the more I learned/thought about it, the less I believed any supernatural explanation for our existence was plausible.

From the other perspective, lets say we "know" about roughly 5% of what this universe holds (I think that's being generous personally). From a statistics perspective, the odds are pretty good a discovery could be made while learning the other 95%. And that's just speaking in terms of "knowing" things in scientific terms, which we know are incredibly limited at the moment.

 

[Terminalxylem]

I always thought agnosticism was kind of a cowardly way to avoid taking a stance.

Might I ask why you think it's so important to take a stance one way or the other?

I believe there’s a Rush song about it…

Seriously though, it isn’t important to me. While technically accurate, I just think agnosticism for something inherently unknowable is kind of a cop out.

I guess I'm the opposite of @AAABatteries. I used to be agnostic, but the more I learned/thought about it, the less I believed any supernatural explanation for our existence was plausible.

From the other perspective, lets say we "know" about roughly 5% of what this universe holds (I think that's being generous personally). From a statistics perspective, the odds are pretty good a discovery could be made while learning the other 95%. And that's just speaking in terms of "knowing" things in scientific terms, which we know are incredibly limited at the moment.

I have no problem with our collective ignorance. In fact, my comfort with the unknown is probably one reason I’m not religious. I’m perfectly fine with a transient, meaningless existence - intuitively, that makes a lot more sense than eternal life/damnation/reincarnation/etc.

But acknowledging we have a lot to learn, and that many things are incomprehensible, is not the same as believing god is plausible.

 

[Navin Johnson]

I always thought agnosticism was kind of a cowardly way to avoid taking a stance.

Might I ask why you think it's so important to take a stance one way or the other?

I believe there’s a Rush song about it…

Seriously though, it isn’t important to me. While technically accurate, I just think agnosticism for something inherently unknowable is kind of a cop out.

I guess I'm the opposite of @AAABatteries. I used to be agnostic, but the more I learned/thought about it, the less I believed any supernatural explanation for our existence was plausible.

Isn't agnosticism just the acknowledgement that it is unknowable?

 

[Captain Cranks]

Seriously though, it isn’t important to me. While technically accurate, I just think agnosticism for something inherently unknowable is kind of a cop out.

That's why it's important to use the term correctly. It's only a cop out if you think it's the answer to whether you believe in a god or not. To use a more extreme example, it's unknowable if there are gremlins living in the center of Pluto (agnostic), but my best guess is there aren't (agremlintheist).

 

[dgreen]

This is an important point that people don't want to hear: just because you don't molest kids or rob elderly people on the street doesn't mean you are a good person. The bar is much higher than that. Impossibly high, actually.

I think the issue many non-religious people have is the idea that a child molester can molest children for his entire life and then accept religion at the last minute and spend eternity in paradise while the theoretical most philanthropic person on the planet can spend eternity in hell. It’s rather absurd.

As somebody who has had to, for work purposes, view some of the captured photos and videos of the bold, my issue is more so that no cognizant "God" must exist because, if one did, there's no ****ing way said God - assuming any modicum of benevolence - would stand idly by and let what I've had to see happen. As such, if I'm wrong and a God does exist, then he is a giant ******* (which, if you read just the Old Testament, is admittedly plausible).

For "believers", this is such a big, difficult question to deal with and I think many of us too often are dismissive of the question by throwing out some answers to resolve it in the questioner's mind. People like you have seen some incredibly awful things and for some reason many believers think they can just throw out some platitude (did I use that word the right way here?) and have you say, "Oh, wow, you're right. This is no longer a problem for me after your brilliant insight!" I'm actually increasingly bothered by Christians who don't wrestle with this question.

 

[Terminalxylem]

I always thought agnosticism was kind of a cowardly way to avoid taking a stance.

Might I ask why you think it's so important to take a stance one way or the other?

I believe there’s a Rush song about it…

Seriously though, it isn’t important to me. While technically accurate, I just think agnosticism for something inherently unknowable is kind of a cop out.

I guess I'm the opposite of @AAABatteries. I used to be agnostic, but the more I learned/thought about it, the less I believed any supernatural explanation for our existence was plausible.

Isn't agnosticism just the acknowledgement that it is unknowable?

Then we're all agnostic.

 

[urbanhack]

I have to say I find atheists who are confident that there's no God/god to be "as bad"* as folks that are confidently religious and have no doubt about God's existence. Both are, IMO, acts of faith/belief. There's at least a plausibility that anything explained by science was done by a god - if a god/God exists it's entirely possible that our reality is totally altered by their whims. Read: there's no concrete way to prove that we aren't in The Matrix.

I find agnosticism to be the most logical of those 3 choices. Man has been attempting to prove/disprove god/God for a long time and we still have no clue. And it seems rather presumptuous of us to assume that we can know it. God/god could easily be a being that we can't even comprehend - because they may not want us to know or comprehend them. Or there could be no god. I don't think any of us knows.

*I'm not saying "as bad" meaning they are bad but more using the term to compare the two - both require faith.

Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they don't even describe the same thing. Theism vs atheism is whether a person believes in a god or gods. Gnostic vs agnosticism is whether a person thinks it's knowable or unknowable.

This sums it up nicely

Personally I'm an agnostic atheist. I don't believe in a god but I also don't think it's knowable.

This is where I am. I don't believe any type of god, but open to the possibility of a "higher power," energy sources, spirituality, etc.

Also as a side note. Some of my best friends and nicest people in the world (including many folks from this site) that I know are atheist or agnostic. Some of the worst people I know are christian...but this is just my anecdotal take as others have done.

 

[urbanhack]

I always thought agnosticism was kind of a cowardly way to avoid taking a stance.

Might I ask why you think it's so important to take a stance one way or the other?

I believe there’s a Rush song about it…

Seriously though, it isn’t important to me. While technically accurate, I just think agnosticism for something inherently unknowable is kind of a cop out.

I guess I'm the opposite of @AAABatteries. I used to be agnostic, but the more I learned/thought about it, the less I believed any supernatural explanation for our existence was plausible.

Isn't agnosticism just the acknowledgement that it is unknowable?

Then we're all agnostic.

/thread

 

[IvanKaramazov]

This is an important point that people don't want to hear: just because you don't molest kids or rob elderly people on the street doesn't mean you are a good person. The bar is much higher than that. Impossibly high, actually.

I think the issue many non-religious people have is the idea that a child molester can molest children for his entire life and then accept religion at the last minute and spend eternity in paradise while the theoretical most philanthropic person on the planet can spend eternity in hell. It’s rather absurd.

As somebody who has had to, for work purposes, view some of the captured photos and videos of the bold, my issue is more so that no cognizant "God" must exist because, if one did, there's no ****ing way said God - assuming any modicum of benevolence - would stand idly by and let what I've had to see happen. As such, if I'm wrong and a God does exist, then he is a giant ******* (which, if you read just the Old Testament, is admittedly plausible).

For "believers", this is such a big, difficult question to deal with and I think many of us too often are dismissive of the question by throwing out some answers to resolve it in the questioner's mind. People like you have seen some incredibly awful things and for some reason many believers think they can just throw out some platitude (did I use that word the right way here?) and have you say, "Oh, wow, you're right. This is no longer a problem for me after your brilliant insight!" I'm actually increasingly bothered by Christians who don't wrestle with this question.

If you're curious and interested in learning more about this topic, the argument that you're referencing is called "the problem of evil." "Theodicy" is the term that people use for answers to that problem. This argument is many thousands of years old and is the topic of the book of Job. I very strongly agree with you that this is the sort of thing that Christians have an obligation to think about.

 

[Navin Johnson]

This is an important point that people don't want to hear: just because you don't molest kids or rob elderly people on the street doesn't mean you are a good person. The bar is much higher than that. Impossibly high, actually.

I think the issue many non-religious people have is the idea that a child molester can molest children for his entire life and then accept religion at the last minute and spend eternity in paradise while the theoretical most philanthropic person on the planet can spend eternity in hell. It’s rather absurd.

As somebody who has had to, for work purposes, view some of the captured photos and videos of the bold, my issue is more so that no cognizant "God" must exist because, if one did, there's no ****ing way said God - assuming any modicum of benevolence - would stand idly by and let what I've had to see happen. As such, if I'm wrong and a God does exist, then he is a giant ******* (which, if you read just the Old Testament, is admittedly plausible).

"If there is a god he will have to beg for my foregiveness"

 

[Navin Johnson]

I always thought agnosticism was kind of a cowardly way to avoid taking a stance.

Might I ask why you think it's so important to take a stance one way or the other?

I believe there’s a Rush song about it…

Seriously though, it isn’t important to me. While technically accurate, I just think agnosticism for something inherently unknowable is kind of a cop out.

I guess I'm the opposite of @AAABatteries. I used to be agnostic, but the more I learned/thought about it, the less I believed any supernatural explanation for our existence was plausible.

Isn't agnosticism just the acknowledgement that it is unknowable?

Then we're all agnostic.

Pretty much

 

[The Commish]

I always thought agnosticism was kind of a cowardly way to avoid taking a stance.

Might I ask why you think it's so important to take a stance one way or the other?

I believe there’s a Rush song about it…

Seriously though, it isn’t important to me. While technically accurate, I just think agnosticism for something inherently unknowable is kind of a cop out.

I guess I'm the opposite of @AAABatteries. I used to be agnostic, but the more I learned/thought about it, the less I believed any supernatural explanation for our existence was plausible.

From the other perspective, lets say we "know" about roughly 5% of what this universe holds (I think that's being generous personally). From a statistics perspective, the odds are pretty good a discovery could be made while learning the other 95%. And that's just speaking in terms of "knowing" things in scientific terms, which we know are incredibly limited at the moment.

I have no problem with our collective ignorance. In fact, my comfort with the unknown is probably one reason I’m not religious. I’m perfectly fine with a transient, meaningless existence - intuitively, that makes a lot more sense than eternal life/damnation/reincarnation/etc.

But acknowledging we have a lot to learn, and that many things are incomprehensible, is not the same as believing god is plausible.

This is agnosticism.

 

[Captain Cranks]

Pretty much

Perhaps what AAA was referring to, anyone on either side who suggests they KNOW is full of ****.

 

[Joe Bryant]

If you're curious and interested in learning more about this topic, the argument that you're referencing is called "the problem of evil." "Theodicy" is the term that people use for answers to that problem. This argument is many thousands of years old and is the topic of the book of Job. I very strongly agree with you that this is the sort of thing that Christians have an obligation to think about.

Full agreement. The "how can a good and loving God be powerful and yet allow the things that happen?" is by far the biggest question I have. I think @IvanKaramazov is right and Christians have an obligation to think about. I can 100% see how it's especially difficult for people that see more of this than average people. Or have a personal tragedy in their lives. Totally get it.

My minor in comparison example (but very real to me) was my best friend and college roommate dying in a car accident a couple of weeks before was to start Medical School. It wasn't so much a doubting the existence of God thing for me as it was a "This is BS and I'm out" thing. I totally can understand why folks would feel that.

 

[AAABatteries]

I always thought agnosticism was kind of a cowardly way to avoid taking a stance.

Might I ask why you think it's so important to take a stance one way or the other?

I believe there’s a Rush song about it…

Seriously though, it isn’t important to me. While technically accurate, I just think agnosticism for something inherently unknowable is kind of a cop out.

I guess I'm the opposite of @AAABatteries. I used to be agnostic, but the more I learned/thought about it, the less I believed any supernatural explanation for our existence was plausible.

From the other perspective, lets say we "know" about roughly 5% of what this universe holds (I think that's being generous personally). From a statistics perspective, the odds are pretty good a discovery could be made while learning the other 95%. And that's just speaking in terms of "knowing" things in scientific terms, which we know are incredibly limited at the moment.

I have no problem with our collective ignorance. In fact, my comfort with the unknown is probably one reason I’m not religious. I’m perfectly fine with a transient, meaningless existence - intuitively, that makes a lot more sense than eternal life/damnation/reincarnation/etc.

But acknowledging we have a lot to learn, and that many things are incomprehensible, is not the same as believing god is plausible.

So you admit to our collective ignorance and that it's unknowable but then say you don't believe god is plausible. Sorry, but that doesn't compute (for me). We like to think of God as we have learned form religious texts - I mean, I don't see how the Matrix or simulation scenario isn't possible to whatever god is. Woz already mentioned he thinks god is an ******* (if he's real) - well, who's to say that's precisely the case and we are all part of some cosmic game? I have no clue how to put a plausibility metric on that because I'm (a dumb) human and can't comprehend it.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Perhaps what AAA was referring to, anyone on either side who suggests they KNOW is full of ****.

This is what I was talking about when my pastor friend answers the question, "What if there are other valid paths to heaven and God for other religions and will those folks be in Heaven?" and he says, "We'll see".

You can think something is a way. But also acknowledge the possibility you could be wrong.

 

[AAABatteries]

Pretty much

Perhaps what AAA was referring to, anyone on either side who suggests they KNOW is full of ****.

Exactly - it gives me some level of comfort knowing that it is unknowable and requires faith. My issue is with folks who won't admit they don't know but just have faith their take is the right one.

 

[Navin Johnson]

Pretty much

Perhaps what AAA was referring to, anyone on either side who suggests they KNOW is full of ****.

There's an atheist adage where if you ask a Christian what, if anything, would cause you to abandon your belief, they will say 'Nothing'. Ask an atheist the same thing and the response will be 'Evidence'. The mere acknowledgment that such evidence MAY exist is pretty much an admission that you don't know.

 

[The Commish]

We are getting into why it's important to distinguish between what we "believe" and what we "know". They aren't interchangeable though a lot of times it happens.

 

[Captain Cranks]

Exactly - it gives me some level of comfort knowing that it is unknowable and requires faith. My issue is with folks who won't admit they don't know but just have faith their take is the right one.

Are you trying to say that "Repent or you will rot in hell" is a turn off?

 

[Joe Bryant]

Another thing I think was important for me.

Some things are binary and everything lines up perfectly in support on the solution of a problem. And all opposition to the "problem" is removed.

If there is one bit of objection or opposition, that means the solution doesn't work.

I think a person's decision on whether or not to follow a faith is much more like being a juror on a court case. There will be compelling evidence on both sides. Few cases that make it to court and require a jury are open and shut.

It's the job of the juror to consider the evidence, weigh it out and make a decision.

 

[Psychopav]

Pretty much

Perhaps what AAA was referring to, anyone on either side who suggests they KNOW is full of ****.

I don't know but I've been told.

 

[Terminalxylem]

Pretty much

Perhaps what AAA was referring to, anyone on either side who suggests they KNOW is full of ****.

There's an atheist adage where if you ask a Christian what, if anything, would cause you to abandon your belief, they will say 'Nothing'. Ask an atheist the same thing and the response will be 'Evidence'. The mere acknowledgment that such evidence MAY exist is pretty much an admission that you don't know.

This is fair.

But given lack of evidence of a higher power, despite looking for thousands of years, coupled with science debunking religious beliefs over time, there comes a point when the likelihood of God is close enough to zero that hanging one’s hat on agnosticism seems intellectually dishonest, imo.

As I said before, technically we‘re all agnostic, but gun to my head, I’ll choose what makes the most sense based on what is known, and isn’t. Or to use a court analogy, in light of the evidence, the inexistence of god is “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

 

[Galileo]

Just came across this debate between Alex O'Conner and Ben Shapiro titled "Is religion good or bad for society?" I have only watched part of it so far, but it seems pretty well done with well thought out perspectives coming from both sides. I thought those who were interested in this thread may be interested in checking out the debate.

 

[Orange&Blue]

Pretty much

Perhaps what AAA was referring to, anyone on either side who suggests they KNOW is full of ****.

There's an atheist adage where if you ask a Christian what, if anything, would cause you to abandon your belief, they will say 'Nothing'. Ask an atheist the same thing and the response will be 'Evidence'. The mere acknowledgment that such evidence MAY exist is pretty much an admission that you don't know.

This is fair.

But given lack of evidence of a higher power, despite looking for thousands of years, coupled with science debunking religious beliefs over time, there comes a point when the likelihood of God is close enough to zero that hanging one’s hat on agnosticism seems intellectually dishonest, imo.

As I said before, technically we‘re all agnostic, but gun to my head, I’ll choose what makes the most sense based on what is known, and isn’t. Or to use a court analogy, in light of the evidence, the inexistence of god is “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Lack of evidence? Everything around you, cognitive thought, space, time, universe, etc is all evidence. Consider the state of civilization when the Bible/etc was written. God trying to explain string theory or whatever mechanism he used would have been futile. Given all our advances we still have no idea and any scientists who thinks he knows is flat out lying.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

I am not religious. I was raised Jewish. Lost my faith when I was around 12 and I realized how stupid it was when we all sat around on passover and went through the 10 commandments during the Seder. We go through each commandment one by one, dipping our pinky in wine, then on the edge of the plate, while reciting the plagues one at a time. Building up to the grand finale where we basically high-fived each other when we got to #10 where an omnipotent God that can do anything decided the best way to free the Jews was to murder a bunch of innocent brown babies.

Psychopaths.

I find the stories in the bible ridiculously ludicrous and hypocritical. The same stories of God applied to a human would have unanimous consent that it was the most evil human being in existence. Noah's Ark? These people aren't great so I need to commit mass genocide. That's literally Hitler.

But I respect people that use religion for good and to pressure morality on those that struggle with it. It saves people that are not born with inate morality. I respect those that do good in the name of religion. I think religion is a net positive. I think organized religions is a net negative.

The Jesus that was described in the bible is amazing. I don't believe he was the son of God, but I strive to live like him. I love the Christians that follow him. Most Christians don't.

I live in Utah. I see the multi-million dollar temples blotting out the skyline. I see the church getting caught hiding billions. I see the Catholicism and the largest organized child pedophelia racket in history, that continues on with barely a blip when discovered. It disgusts me.

On the flipside. I see the smaller churches. One of my best friends is extremely religious. His good friend the pastor of his church (and now a good friend of mine, formerly a friend of a friend). This church is a 1980's building. Smells kind a mildewy. Because they don't invest in the church. They don't make a building of gold and stained glass and huge stages with microphones. They spend their money and their time, their lives, helping people. They are the good (great) side of religion. I don't know them, but these are the type of people I imagine when I see JB or Commish posting. I only know what I see of them on FBGs, but I respect them and their beliefs immensely even if I personally believe a real God to be as likely as Santa or the Easter Bunny. And I don't really care whether you're a good person because you strive to be like God or be like the Easter Bunny, so long as you're a good person.

On the flipside my sister in law. The nicest person I've ever met. Wouldn't hurt a fly, would give everything she had to the first person she saw suffering. Sucked into a mega church. Now votes against the exact things that Jesus preached while claiming to be pious. A waste of a great person, ruined by mega religion.

Religion. The REAL religion. The REAL Jesus. Is amazing. The small churches that devote everything to acceptance, love, and equality. I don't believe in God, but I spend time at those churches, because those people are the best of us. Can I be a part of that church and helping people if I don't actually believe in God as they do? They say yes, without hesitation.

Religion. The FAKE religion. Those that claim to love Jesus but act in a way that would make him vomit. I hate that. So many good people wasted through manipulation. Mega churches. Money. Hyprocrisy. The worst.

 

[Terminalxylem]

Pretty much

Perhaps what AAA was referring to, anyone on either side who suggests they KNOW is full of ****.

There's an atheist adage where if you ask a Christian what, if anything, would cause you to abandon your belief, they will say 'Nothing'. Ask an atheist the same thing and the response will be 'Evidence'. The mere acknowledgment that such evidence MAY exist is pretty much an admission that you don't know.

This is fair.

But given lack of evidence of a higher power, despite looking for thousands of years, coupled with science debunking religious beliefs over time, there comes a point when the likelihood of God is close enough to zero that hanging one’s hat on agnosticism seems intellectually dishonest, imo.

As I said before, technically we‘re all agnostic, but gun to my head, I’ll choose what makes the most sense based on what is known, and isn’t. Or to use a court analogy, in light of the evidence, the inexistence of god is “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Lack of evidence? Everything around you, cognitive thought, space, time, universe, etc is all evidence. Consider the state of civilization when the Bible/etc was written. God trying to explain string theory or whatever mechanism he used would have been futile. Given all our advances we still have no idea and any scientists who thinks he knows is flat out lying.

No. Inability to explain the complexity of the universe does absolutely nothing to prove (or disprove) the existence of a higher power. While invoking a higher power to explain everything may feel comforting, it doesn’t make it true.

It’s really easy for God to prove he exists - just open up the heavens and give us all a thumbs up, throw a lightening bolt, explain string theory, whatever. No reason to be coy, especially if maximizing believers is one of his goals.

Of course no one truly knows if there is a god; but I’m not lying when I say I doubt it.

 

[Psychopav]

Pretty much

Perhaps what AAA was referring to, anyone on either side who suggests they KNOW is full of ****.

There's an atheist adage where if you ask a Christian what, if anything, would cause you to abandon your belief, they will say 'Nothing'. Ask an atheist the same thing and the response will be 'Evidence'. The mere acknowledgment that such evidence MAY exist is pretty much an admission that you don't know.

This is fair.

But given lack of evidence of a higher power, despite looking for thousands of years, coupled with science debunking religious beliefs over time, there comes a point when the likelihood of God is close enough to zero that hanging one’s hat on agnosticism seems intellectually dishonest, imo.

As I said before, technically we‘re all agnostic, but gun to my head, I’ll choose what makes the most sense based on what is known, and isn’t. Or to use a court analogy, in light of the evidence, the inexistence of god is “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Lack of evidence? Everything around you, cognitive thought, space, time, universe, etc is all evidence. Consider the state of civilization when the Bible/etc was written. God trying to explain string theory or whatever mechanism he used would have been futile. Given all our advances we still have no idea and any scientists who thinks he knows is flat out lying.

No. Inability to explain the complexity of the universe does absolutely nothing to prove (or disprove) the existence of a higher power. While invoking a higher power to explain everything may feel comforting, it doesn’t make it true.

It’s really easy for God to prove he exists - just open up the heavens and give us all a thumbs up, throw a lightening bolt, explain string theory, whatever. No reason to be coy, especially if maximizing believers is one of his goals.

Of course no one truly knows if there is a god; but I’m not lying when I say I doubt it.

RE the bolded: What if He did that in Eden, and it was super obvious and people were able to clearly commune with Him, and the people turned away anyway? Isn't trying the same thing twice but expecting different results the definition of insanity?

 

[Judge Smails]

The debate about what we know for sure vs faith has been going on forever. I still think a lot of this has been the stains on organized religion. Starts with money. One thing to have a vow of poverty. Another thing to see this:

• Jessie Duplantis: $20 Million
• Rick Warren: $25 Million
• Creflo Dollar: $27 Million
• Andy Stanley: $45 Million
• Steven Furtick Jr.: $60 Million
• Pat Robertson: $100 Million
• Joel Osteen: $110 Million
• Kenneth Copeland: $300 Million

I don't give a rats a$$ if they made their money off of books and are not taking it from parishioners. If you are a spiritual leader then funnel that money back into helping those less fortunate, instead of having mega mansions, $5,000 suits, cars.

Then you have the sexual abuse cases littered throughout organized religion. Sure, the horrors within the Catholic church stand out, but it's everywhere. Grooming in the name of religion is happening worldwide, in virtually every denomination. It's a predator's playground.

I do agree that "if there is a God then why do such horrific things happen" is the 3rd leg of this stool.

The 4th might be the intolerance over identity if you're not heterosexual.

To me - these are the real reasons there is a death/loss of religion.

 

[Steeler]

No reason to be coy, especially if maximizing believers is one of his goals.

I'm reading the bible for the first time this year so I'm no expert, but this doesn't seem like it's one of His goals. Mathew's gospel talks about the narrow road and that few people can find it, while the road to Hell is wide and easy to find.

 

[massraider]

To me - these are the real reasons there is a death/loss of religion.

If someone reads a history book or three, someone might think that organized religion does significantly more harm than good.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

No reason to be coy, especially if maximizing believers is one of his goals.

I'm reading the bible for the first time this year so I'm no expert, but this doesn't seem like it's one of His goals. Mathew's gospel talks about the narrow road and that few people can find it, while the road to Hell is wide and easy to find.

It is quite an interesting paradigm the Christian god has created. He makes it very difficult to follow his path and accept him as your lord and savior - creating an incredible world of scientific wonders and knowledge, but requiring us to accept the extraordinary proposition of his existence purely on faith, while at the same time damming the souls of those who are uncertain to eternal hellfire.

 

[Terminalxylem]

No reason to be coy, especially if maximizing believers is one of his goals.

I'm reading the bible for the first time this year so I'm no expert, but this doesn't seem like it's one of his goals. Mathew's gospel talks about the narrow road and that few people can find it, while the road to Hell is wide and easy to find.

You may be right. But if that's the case, why sacrifice your son/part of yourself to atone for the sins of those who chose the wrong path?

Smiting seems easier, and a lot more effective. I don't know about you, but a few more pillars of salt would definitely dissuade me from peeking at Gomorrah.

 

[Terminalxylem]

Pretty much

Perhaps what AAA was referring to, anyone on either side who suggests they KNOW is full of ****.

There's an atheist adage where if you ask a Christian what, if anything, would cause you to abandon your belief, they will say 'Nothing'. Ask an atheist the same thing and the response will be 'Evidence'. The mere acknowledgment that such evidence MAY exist is pretty much an admission that you don't know.

This is fair.

But given lack of evidence of a higher power, despite looking for thousands of years, coupled with science debunking religious beliefs over time, there comes a point when the likelihood of God is close enough to zero that hanging one’s hat on agnosticism seems intellectually dishonest, imo.

As I said before, technically we‘re all agnostic, but gun to my head, I’ll choose what makes the most sense based on what is known, and isn’t. Or to use a court analogy, in light of the evidence, the inexistence of god is “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Lack of evidence? Everything around you, cognitive thought, space, time, universe, etc is all evidence. Consider the state of civilization when the Bible/etc was written. God trying to explain string theory or whatever mechanism he used would have been futile. Given all our advances we still have no idea and any scientists who thinks he knows is flat out lying.

No. Inability to explain the complexity of the universe does absolutely nothing to prove (or disprove) the existence of a higher power. While invoking a higher power to explain everything may feel comforting, it doesn’t make it true.

It’s really easy for God to prove he exists - just open up the heavens and give us all a thumbs up, throw a lightening bolt, explain string theory, whatever. No reason to be coy, especially if maximizing believers is one of his goals.

Of course no one truly knows if there is a god; but I’m not lying when I say I doubt it.

RE the bolded: What if He did that in Eden, and it was super obvious and people were able to clearly commune with Him, and the people turned away anyway? Isn't trying the same thing twice but expecting different results the definition of insanity?

Being omniscient and all, I suppose he should know the most effective modes of persuasion. In retrospect, blind faith really has worked out pretty well, but he might want to revisit his business model in the 21st century.

 

[dkp993]

Pretty much

Perhaps what AAA was referring to, anyone on either side who suggests they KNOW is full of ****.

There's an atheist adage where if you ask a Christian what, if anything, would cause you to abandon your belief, they will say 'Nothing'. Ask an atheist the same thing and the response will be 'Evidence'. The mere acknowledgment that such evidence MAY exist is pretty much an admission that you don't know.

This is fair.

But given lack of evidence of a higher power, despite looking for thousands of years, coupled with science debunking religious beliefs over time, there comes a point when the likelihood of God is close enough to zero that hanging one’s hat on agnosticism seems intellectually dishonest, imo.

As I said before, technically we‘re all agnostic, but gun to my head, I’ll choose what makes the most sense based on what is known, and isn’t. Or to use a court analogy, in light of the evidence, the inexistence of god is “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Lack of evidence? Everything around you, cognitive thought, space, time, universe, etc is all evidence. Consider the state of civilization when the Bible/etc was written. God trying to explain string theory or whatever mechanism he used would have been futile. Given all our advances we still have no idea and any scientists who thinks he knows is flat out lying.

No. Inability to explain the complexity of the universe does absolutely nothing to prove (or disprove) the existence of a higher power. While invoking a higher power to explain everything may feel comforting, it doesn’t make it true.

It’s really easy for God to prove he exists - just open up the heavens and give us all a thumbs up, throw a lightening bolt, explain string theory, whatever. No reason to be coy, especially if maximizing believers is one of his goals.

Of course no one truly knows if there is a god; but I’m not lying when I say I doubt it.

RE the bolded: What if He did that in Eden, and it was super obvious and people were able to clearly commune with Him, and the people turned away anyway? Isn't trying the same thing twice but expecting different results the definition of insanity?

Being omniscient and all, I suppose he should know the most effective modes of persuasion. In retrospect, blind faith really has worked out pretty well, but he might want to revisit his business model in the 21st century.

Has it really though? It’s created a whole lot of “followers” over the millennia but what % of those actually lived like Jesus preached or the Bible demanded? Well under 1% would be my guess. That’s a pretty low batting average for the omniscient.

 

[caustic]

I go to church with my parents on Christmas and Easter but otherwise stay away, probably to their disappointment. They would take me there every Sunday morning growing up. At that church I saw a lot of the intolerance, hypocrisy, and cynicism discussed in this thread, and I decided to no longer affiliate myself with that after moving out. Still, I voted neutral in the poll. I think people need some kind of framework to consider life's deeper questions and think about the universe as something bigger than themselves. It's certainly possible to find that meaning in something other than an organized religion, but it can be difficult, and the resulting secular spirituality can be just as unhealthy as the religious one. For a time I became the kind of religiously political person who Ivan described on page 1. Unquestionably, that did not make me a better or happier person. Much of this thread has focused on critiques of the church as an institution and debates about the existence of a higher power, which are all good conversations to have. But I do think it's important to note the fulfillment and direction religion can provide at the individual level, and consider where people seek out that personal guidance and satisfaction once they're no longer part of an organized religion. The answers to that can really vary, so this was an easy "neutral" vote for me.

 

[Judge Smails]

To me - these are the real reasons there is a death/loss of religion.

If someone reads a history book or three, someone might think that organized religion does significantly more harm than good.

History books may not cover Joel Osteen's wealth, the history of sexual abuse, etc, the exorcism rituals with homosexuals, etc depending on when they were written. Sure there is a lot of good with religion. That's not being questioned. But is it offset with the bad enough to push people away? We have more people who are spiritual back away from religion. I think the 4 things I raised have a lot to do with it. If not - what's changed in the last 1/2 century to cause the shift? What are the reasons if not some of what I proposed? Evolution vs creation by God is not a new argument. Faith vs empirical evidence isn't either. Been around forever.

 

[Ilov80s]

No reason to be coy, especially if maximizing believers is one of his goals.

I'm reading the bible for the first time this year so I'm no expert, but this doesn't seem like it's one of His goals. Mathew's gospel talks about the narrow road and that few people can find it, while the road to Hell is wide and easy to find.

My Bible is rusty, been awhile since Catholic School but I don't recall taking that as the road is narrow because God doesn't want many believers but the road is narrow because it is a difficult one to walk. It's much easier to be selfish, greedy, cruel, self-centered, etc.

 

[AAABatteries]

No reason to be coy, especially if maximizing believers is one of his goals.

I'm reading the bible for the first time this year so I'm no expert, but this doesn't seem like it's one of His goals. Mathew's gospel talks about the narrow road and that few people can find it, while the road to Hell is wide and easy to find.

My Bible is rusty, been awhile since Catholic School but I don't recall taking that as the road is narrow because God doesn't want many believers but the road is narrow because it is a difficult one to walk. It's much easier to be selfish, greedy, cruel, self-centered, etc.

That’s my major problem with Christianity- I can be selfish, greedy, cruel, self-centered, etc. but still go to heaven - while the person who actually helps people and is a good earthly person goes to hell.

 

[New Binky the Doormat]

No reason to be coy, especially if maximizing believers is one of his goals.

I'm reading the bible for the first time this year so I'm no expert, but this doesn't seem like it's one of His goals. Mathew's gospel talks about the narrow road and that few people can find it, while the road to Hell is wide and easy to find.

My Bible is rusty, been awhile since Catholic School but I don't recall taking that as the road is narrow because God doesn't want many believers but the road is narrow because it is a difficult one to walk. It's much easier to be selfish, greedy, cruel, self-centered, etc.

That’s my major problem with Christianity- I can be selfish, greedy, cruel, self-centered, etc. but still go to heaven - while the person who actually helps people and is a good earthly person goes to hell.

my grandmother always said that those "sanctimonious old bitties" at church on Sundays were the worst people in town ...always stirring up trouble and talking nasty and making up gossip

I was raised Presbyterian but didn't go that often ...parents made me go to classes 2 hours on Sunday evenings for 2 years to decide whether I wanted to join when I was 13-14 - horrible.

I joined and never went back.

Got married in a Catholic church and had to "counseling classes" before we got married in order to do so. The POS "counselor priest" told my wife not to marry me - that I was too selfish and not of the right faith.

Married 36 years ...**** that guy.

Also - raised the kids Catholic ...they both hate the religion and saw some of the most obnoxious racist crap you could image.

yeah, besides that, religion is great ...

 

[DA RAIDERS]

Pretty much

Perhaps what AAA was referring to, anyone on either side who suggests they KNOW is full of ****.

There's an atheist adage where if you ask a Christian what, if anything, would cause you to abandon your belief, they will say 'Nothing'. Ask an atheist the same thing and the response will be 'Evidence'. The mere acknowledgment that such evidence MAY exist is pretty much an admission that you don't know.

This is fair.

But given lack of evidence of a higher power, despite looking for thousands of years, coupled with science debunking religious beliefs over time, there comes a point when the likelihood of God is close enough to zero that hanging one’s hat on agnosticism seems intellectually dishonest, imo.

As I said before, technically we‘re all agnostic, but gun to my head, I’ll choose what makes the most sense based on what is known, and isn’t. Or to use a court analogy, in light of the evidence, the inexistence of god is “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Lack of evidence? Everything around you, cognitive thought, space, time, universe, etc is all evidence. Consider the state of civilization when the Bible/etc was written. God trying to explain string theory or whatever mechanism he used would have been futile. Given all our advances we still have no idea and any scientists who thinks he knows is flat out lying.

No. Inability to explain the complexity of the universe does absolutely nothing to prove (or disprove) the existence of a higher power. While invoking a higher power to explain everything may feel comforting, it doesn’t make it true.

It’s really easy for God to prove he exists - just open up the heavens and give us all a thumbs up, throw a lightening bolt, explain string theory, whatever. No reason to be coy, especially if maximizing believers is one of his goals.

Of course no one truly knows if there is a god; but I’m not lying when I say I doubt it.

RE the bolded: What if He did that in Eden, and it was super obvious and people were able to clearly commune with Him, and the people turned away anyway? Isn't trying the same thing twice but expecting different results the definition of insanity?

no. the world needs a real tangible sign now. Not a story from The Bible

 

[Steeler]

No reason to be coy, especially if maximizing believers is one of his goals.

I'm reading the bible for the first time this year so I'm no expert, but this doesn't seem like it's one of His goals. Mathew's gospel talks about the narrow road and that few people can find it, while the road to Hell is wide and easy to find.

My Bible is rusty, been awhile since Catholic School but I don't recall taking that as the road is narrow because God doesn't want many believers but the road is narrow because it is a difficult one to walk. It's much easier to be selfish, greedy, cruel, self-centered, etc.

I agree with you and what I said came out wrong. I only quoted part of his post which distorts what I was trying to say. In addition to what I quoted, he said God could easily prove He exists. Within this context, I clumsily pointed out God has already decided how much He wants to reveal himself, and that the narrow/difficult path is the way to know Him.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

History books may not cover Joel Osteen's wealth, the history of sexual abuse, etc, the exorcism rituals with homosexuals, etc depending on when they were written. Sure there is a lot of good with religion. That's not being questioned. But is it offset with the bad enough to push people away? We have more people who are spiritual back away from religion. I think the 4 things I raised have a lot to do with it. If not - what's changed in the last 1/2 century to cause the shift? What are the reasons if not some of what I proposed? Evolution vs creation by God is not a new argument. Faith vs empirical evidence isn't either. Been around forever.

My working theory is that it's the same general social decay that wrecked every other institution. It's not as if it's just the church -- point at any random institution that was considered "trustworthy" in 1990 and compare it to today.

 

[dgreen]

No reason to be coy, especially if maximizing believers is one of his goals.

I'm reading the bible for the first time this year so I'm no expert, but this doesn't seem like it's one of His goals. Mathew's gospel talks about the narrow road and that few people can find it, while the road to Hell is wide and easy to find.

My Bible is rusty, been awhile since Catholic School but I don't recall taking that as the road is narrow because God doesn't want many believers but the road is narrow because it is a difficult one to walk. It's much easier to be selfish, greedy, cruel, self-centered, etc.

That’s my major problem with Christianity- I can be selfish, greedy, cruel, self-centered, etc. but still go to heaven - while the person who actually helps people and is a good earthly person goes to hell.

I believe you've said you attend Andy Stanley's church? Is this how he preaches the Biblical story?

 

[Psychopav]

No reason to be coy, especially if maximizing believers is one of his goals.

I'm reading the bible for the first time this year so I'm no expert, but this doesn't seem like it's one of His goals. Mathew's gospel talks about the narrow road and that few people can find it, while the road to Hell is wide and easy to find.

It is quite an interesting paradigm the Christian god has created. He makes it very difficult to follow his path and accept him as your lord and savior - creating an incredible world of scientific wonders and knowledge, but requiring us to accept the extraordinary proposition of his existence purely on faith, while at the same time damming the souls of those who are uncertain to eternal hellfire.

That's a particularly narrow view of Christianity. The vast majority of Christians are and have been Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox. I don't know about the Orthodox church, but the Catholic Church's teaching on salvation has a lot more nuance than you are crediting to Christianity here.

Christianity is not a check the box and go to heaven faith.